LMT's February 2013 issue features our 2013 Dentist Survey conducted with Dental Economics. Our dentist-respondents speak out on...
...Why They Switch Labs
Quality wasn't consistent.
Cases returned with open margins.
Crowns had high occlusion and open contacts.
Inconvenient to work with due to the distance from my practice.
I have switched from PFM crowns to PFZ or full zirconia crowns. My previous lab was not yet offering this service. Meanwhile, I was noticing that I was taking too much time to adjust my PFM crowns and was becoming increasingly frustrated. At the same time, the zirconia crowns from lab #2 were seating in a much shorter period of time and the esthetics were gorgeous. When I took into consideration the lower-priced lab fees for a zirconia-based crown, the decision to switch labs was a "no-brainer. "
They hired new technicians and the work was not of the same quality.
Technician/case manager left, leading to poor communication and inferior quality.
I was receiving poor quality work and had to redo several cases.
Remakes at unacceptably high levels due to fit and frequent porcelain breakage post-delivery.
Suspected product substitution.
A new lab owner leased space in the building I own and it is super convenient to work with him so I switched.
Keep the jobs here in the U.S.
Although I would rather not have my lab outsource my work, one lab that I work with sends crowns to China and it consistently sends back superior workmanship. Still, I only use them infrequently.
I want to know what materials are being used.
Control over the product is lost in outsourcing.
I want to be able to communicate with the person who is actually doing the work.
If the product is made from quality materials and offers quality fit, what's the difference?
I want to know the person who is creating the restoration I'm placing.
We need to support America.
I would change labs if they outsourced out of the U.S.
I'm concerned about the unknown quality and afraid of losing cases.
If quality remains the same, outsourcing is fine.
If I wanted it outsourced, I would go direct to the overseas lab.
Digital Impression-Taking Systems:
It is the wave of the future! I've been very happy!
Technology is still evolving.
I fear it's costly and can it be as accurate as the real thing?
Patients love it.
OK if they are used to fabricate porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations or onlays.
High learning curve up front followed by future pay-off.
Not affordable and not proven successful.
Excellent but still not fully developed.
Seems to be next important thing to purchase.
Awesome! It's the future! Minimizing chance of error and retakes.
Not good for all situations.
Too expensive for amortization based on my current materials cost and lab fees. Also, still get good physical impressions.
Very nice but too costly at this time for my volume of C&B.
They are the future. It will probably be about 10 years before I get one unless there is a major shift in the market towards digital impression systems.
Chairside CAD/CAM Technology:
Not as good as traditional methods.
The system at the dental school has a few issues. I have seen some porcelain units that were terrible...not anywhere close to acceptable.
It's a lifestyle choice I am not willing to make at this point in my career.
Seem good when used properly.
It`s our future.
I have worked with them. Not happy with them at this time. I will reconsider if the quality continues to improve.
It's so cool!
Not cost effective for my practice which is in a rural area.
I will invest in one when you do not need an in-house technician to stain and detail.
I am a dentist, not a lab technician.
The restorations I have seen in my new patients that were done elsewhere look very poor.
Excellent for all-ceramics.
Of no use in my practice.
Great. I'd love to have one, just can't afford it right now.
Awesome but time consuming.
Requires different way of thinking but once mastered, I see it as providing a much better service to patients.
Island of porcelain in a sea of cement.